writes:
>> It was written on this list:> ---> ~>>> George Frajkor revealed on 12 Sep 1994:> hundreds meters deep filled with gravels and sands founding a formidable> quality water reservoir.>> It's exactly for that reason that the bottom of the Gabcikovo reservoir> had to be hermetized with asphalt. To substitute natural water sinking,> several "holes" have been made on the side of the dam for regulated> leakage. To avoid to loose the energetic potential of this water, there> even are small turbines of several hundreds of kilowatts. This water is> destined to sink underground.
If I am not mistaken, the sealing on the bottom applies to the
canal and entrances to it. I don't believe the entire bottom of the
reservoir was paved. In fact, It would not likely be possible.
> Whether these litres (sorry, we Europeans don't want to know about> gallons;-) pass slowly or quickly has no importance because there is> enough litres all the time to maintain a saturated equilibrium of sinking> all the long of the riverbed and of flowing down.
not entirely. Bernoulli's principle still applies.
> ther were> important changes at the beginning when the water went to fill up the dam,> but now, the situation could be close to the previous state, at least on> the Slovakian side. On the Hungarian side, Dunakiliti part of dam is not> inundated and water could be scarce - I don't have enough data to express> an opinion on this.>
That is correct. After the filling up of the reservoir, flow
downstream through the slovak side and thereafter downstream to the
Black Sea is normal. On the Hungarian side, it is rather dry and
would remain so until Dunakilti is operable and Nagymaros is built.
Barring other agreements.
Jan George Frajkor _!_
School of Journalism, Carleton Univ. --!--
1125 Colonel By Drive |
Ottawa, Ontario /^\
Canada K1S 5B6 /^\ /^\
/
o: 613 788-7404 fax: 613 788-6690 h: 613 563-4534

Subject: Re: More ambivalence toward NATO
From: greg
Date: 17 Sep 94 18:31:36 GMT
In article > ,
writes:
>d.a writes:>>> a while ago I asked why it is "unfeasible" or "unrealistic" for>> hungary to join austria nad switxerland in a "neutral corridor' in>> central europe.>>Actually, this is probably more feasible than Hungary becoming a nuclear
power.
>>The two word answer, is probably History and Geography.>>We can however make some comparisons, from the 1993 CIA World Factbook:>>>Switzerland>>Terrain: mostly mountains (Alps in south, Jura in northwest) with a>central plateau of rolling hills, plains, and large lakes
(i) the jura mountains form the western border and hardly qualify as
alps,
being little over 1,000 metres high
(ii) the alps run through about the middle of the country with a
substantial part of the country of major agricultural importance
to the south
>>International disputes: none
there is, however internal division and strife, with significant portions
of the francophone and italophone regions pushing for secession from
switzerland to join france and a possible new northern italy to escape
what
is perceived as domination by the german swiss. there have been attacks
in
the jura region (by "les beliers") in support of the separation of the
french
speaking communities from the german speaking ones of the cantons of
bern and basel at least.
>>Land boundaries: total 1,852 km, Austria 164 km, France 573 km,>Italy 740 km, Liechtenstein 41 km, Germany 334 km>---
land-locked of vital military and economic impoortance for north-south
transit in western europe (st gotthard, san bernadino, and other passes)
used as important transit by germany in wwii
>>Austria>>Terrain: in the west and south mostly mountains (Alps); along the>eastern and northern margins mostly flat or gently sloping>>International disputes: none
except with slovenia concerning the treatment of the slovene minority in
carinthia and styria, and with italy concerning southern tyrol
taken from austria and awarded to italy in 1920, trieste region given to
italy and yugoslavia in 1920, with slovakia and hungary concerning
slovak-hunagrian dam project and with hungary concerning cancellation of
expo
land-locked of vital military and economic impoortance for north-south
transit in western europe (brenner and other passes)
used as important transit by germany in wwii
>>Land boundaries: total 2,496 km, Czech Republic 362 km, Germany>784 km, Hungary 366 km, Italy 430 km, Liechtenstein 37 km,>Slovakia 91 km, Slovenia 262 km, Switzerland 164 km>--->Hungary>>Terrain: mostly flat to rolling plains
protected by carpathian alps and their foothills to the north and east,
by the yugoslav and austrian alps and their foothills in the west and
south.
>>International disputes: Gabcikovo Dam dispute with Slovakia;>Vojvodina taken from Hungary and awarded to the former>Yugoslavia by treaty of Trianon in 1920>>Land boundaries: total 1,952 km, Austria 366 km, Croatia 292 km,>Romania 443 km, Serbia and Montenegro 151 km (all with Serbia),>Slovakia 515 km, Slovenia 82 km, Ukraine 103 km>>Note: landlocked; strategic location astride main land routes between>Western Europe and Balkan Peninsula as well as between Ukraine>and Mediterranean basin
hardly. the ukrainian basin has direct water access to the mediterranean.
the carpathian mountains form a formidable natural barrier between
hunagry and the ukraine. the way around that on land is either to the
north
--- via poland, slovakia, germany etc --- or to the east --- via
rumania,
bulgaria, yugoslavia, croatia, etc.
most of the traffic from western europe to the balkan peninsula is via
carinthia, styria, italy, slovenia, croatia.
in many cases hungary is also used if the trading includes vienna,
slovakia, rumania or hungary itself.
>--->>>Naturally, none of these factors are relevant unless A) one is willing
to be
>influenced by traditional geopolitical/strategic thinking; or, B) one's>potential adversaries are or may be so influenced.>>Off the top of my head, I'd say another factor'd be whether or not
Hungary's
>neighbors would have much faith in Hungary's commitment to neutrality,>non-aggression, and all- around benignity.>
switzerland's neighbours did not trust switzerland, which is why
switzerland
had its neutrality imposed upon it by others in 1815(?).
i would offer the suggestion that historically, switzerland and austria
have been of greater geopolitical and military significance than hungary,
at least in the last hundred or so years. moreover, i would also suggest
that switzerland's neighbours, france, germany and italy, or austria's
neighbours germany and italy have greater gravitas than hungary's
neighbours, so that neutrality is easier to maintain.
i would also observe that until recently, all but one of hungary's
neighbours were non-aligned countries, or at least neutral in the
east-west cold war. thus a "corridor of neutrality" would not be so
unthnkable.
personally, i find it highly desirable. but then again, i abhor violence.
d.a.

Subject: Re: More ambivalence toward NATO
From: JELIKO,
Date: 17 Sep 94 18:21:30 GMT
In article > JELIKO,
writes:
>Imi Bokor writes:>> a while ago I asked why it is "unfeasible" or "unrealistic" for>> hungary to join austria nad switxerland in a "neutral corridor' in>> central europe.>>> no answer yet. is that because there isn't one?>>> d.a.>There are probably many answers and many different types of neutrality.>Even the neutrality of Austria and Switzerland are different. One of the>answers is probably economics, another is the attitude of neighbors. To
my
>knowledge for example Switzerland has a strong economy, tied to many
other
>countries in its economical activities and on a comperative basis a
strong
>military.
switzerland's neutrality predates its economic strangth by over a century.
during the last century and earlier parts of this century, the swiss were
the guest workers of many countries in europe, and many emigrated to the
usa, canada, south america to support families at home.
> Austria, not neccesarily through solely its own actions, ended up>"neutralized" due to major powers negotiations, by being a borderland>between the two major camps of the time.
that is also how switzerland became a neutral country over one hundred
years earlier.
>(IMHO, The Hungarians would have>been very happy to be "neutralized" at the same time Austria was.)
Partly
>due to its (not self-selected) status, Austria also became much stronger>economically than would have occured otherwise.>Both countries were more developed on a comparative basis, than Hungary>when they became "neutral" (even though to a different degree) and were>less in need of foreign assistance.
quite the contrary. even today switzerland could not sustain itself
easily with food and energy even for a short while. hungary could ---
it has enough coal and enough timber to potentially supply energy demands
albeit at lower than current levels.
>I do recall the frequent requests to>the UN by Austria regarding its nationality problems, for example in
Tyrol,
>until the economical well being of those minorities in Italy became so>strong that the issue sort of went away. There was a strong support from>Austria for its minority in Italy, even when some terrorist activity was>taking place in Tyrol. (While it is not the issue here, the degree and
type
>of nationality freedom in Tyrol should be studied as one potential
example)
>>While I do recall an agreement (or agreements) relating to guarantees of>Switzerlands borders, I do not have my treaty books handy so I can not
give
>specific reference; the Austrian borders were guaranteed by the 1955>Austrian Peace treaty by major powers.
i believe that in the case of switzerland it was the traeties of about
1815-1817 that played the corresponding role.
>>Can Hungary achieve or should it achieve similar status is really a>question of its population's wishes, but IMHO, even then it will need a>favorable geopolitiocal situation.
hungary is fortunate in that its geopolitical location is favourable to
neutrality.
>In all seriousness, I can not forsee>Hungary attacking anybody (except themselves) for the forseeable future,>and as long as the self-gnawing occupies their energy, they are as
neutral
>as most other neutral countries, except significantly poorer than the
ones
>cited by you. Also, if I recall correctly, the stated policy of the 1956>revolution was "neutrality", it was not widely respected. So maybe>"neutrality" from some strength (internally or externally guarantable)
is
>needed to achieve or select that option. Also, as far as "joining" an>existing corridor is concerned, some cooperation from those "joined" is>needed.
austria did not need the co-operation of the swiss for its neutrality. in
fact there is some dubstantial distance between the two countries, with
spying affairs in volved, cf brigadier jean-marie(?) of the swiss army
>Regards,Jeliko.
d.a.

In article >, writes:
>> a while ago I asked why it is "unfeasible" or "unrealistic" for> hungary to join austria nad switxerland in a "neutral corridor' in> central europe.>> no answer yet. is that because there isn't one?>
I am affraid the "neutral corridor" does not exist anymore, Austria
will become a member of the European Union and cannot avoid to be
integrated, in my opinion, to some defense structure.
The very concept of the "neutrality" is now put in question, after
disappearing of the bipolar world. In Switzerland, there is a society-
wide debate about issues like adherence to Joint European Space (to
which the people said no on 6 December 1993).
Central Europe is not the same as it was only five years ago.
Roman Kanala

On Sun, 18 Sep 1994 23:11:39 -0400 Hala'sz Sa'ndor said:
>"Cliche" is a word for a vile notion.
--Vile is a pretty strong word. I think that one has to make a distinction
between colorful expressions and overworked ones. I think that I was wrong
to label "Buckley's chance" as a cliche. It is a colorful colloquialism, and
I will now look for a chance to use it to the annoyance of my friends and
colleagues!
--But surely, in other languages there are phrases that are used to the
point that they become tiresome and unimaginative, aren't there?
In any other language, Hungarish (yes, I
>really mean that) included, there is no such notion. Instead, one is expected>to know a good many old, colorful expressions.
--The problem in America is that we use a kind of bastard English, partly
because, like it or not, we are a multicultural society (and I really think
that multicultural has been misused in this country and is now a political
symbol). We have many regional expressions that are colorful, but not
very intelligible outside of the region where they are most often used.
Some of the expressions that are common to most of the country get over-
worked. Many of them have English roots, and this is not really an
"English" country, for the English are very different from us. I would
go so far as to suggest it is difficult to argue that there is AN
American culture, because we are such a mixture. Although we all
use the same formal political structure, i.e., the Constitution, mainly
a two-party system, and the same fundamental laws, there is great
variation in practice.
--I read with interest the discussion about Hungarian culture. I think
that Hungarians have a different problem. I think it is easier to argue
that there is a Hungarian culture, although one must grant that there are
several strands to it. The language is part of it, and history has a lot
to do with it as does music, literature, and so on.
It even happens, eg,
>"szemreha'nya's", that an expression becums the standard word. There is an>like English expression, "cast it in one s eye(s)/face", but that is nou rare
--But you might here someone say, "There you go, throwing that in my face
again!" or "Stop throwing that up to me!" meaning to confront me with one
of my past sins or errors.
--A colorful expression only becomes a cliche when it is overworked and
used constantly to the point that it becomes tiresome. A good example
is the use of "Well, that's the way the cookie crumbles" to indicate
to some poor unfortunate that his situation is too bad. The offhand
use of this (or an equivalent expression) is pretty insensitive as in:
"Ralph just had a terrible accident. His car is a total loss and he
will be in hospital for six weeks."
"Well, that's the way the cookie crumbles."
I shouldn't send this, but it's early in the morning, and I'm awake!

For some reason my message did not appear on the hungary bulettin board so I
send here.....
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
First I thought I would not bother to adress a statement about the turbulent
airflow around wings that results the lift force...
I changed my mind and will comment, although I am not and 'aviation engineer'.
I used to be involved in model plane building and design and later I took some
courses on aerodynamics at my university as well.
So hear my tale:
On airplane wings one would like to avoid turbulence!!!:
The matter of fact is that turbulent flow would cause quite a trouble on the
wing as it would increase the so called drag force, i.e. the aerodynamic
resistance.
Thus, it would increase the necessary thrust to keep the plane
flying since a certain wing profile requires a certain velocity
to travel with in order to prevent from descending. The lift force of a wing
depends on the velocity it travels.
So the less the drag, or turbulency, the easier to make a plane fly!!!
How a wing works :
------------------
Airplanes use wings, which are surfaces that is designed to obtain maximum
aerodynamic lift (sometimes they are called airfoils). They provide
aerodynamic lift because of their curvature of thier surfaces. THe wing upper
surface is more cambered then the lower one so the air flowing over the top
of the wing is forced to move more quickly, it has to pass on a longer way.
THe velocity increase in the upper airflow causes decrease in pressure
relative to the lower one thus providing the lift force on the total area
of the wing(s).
The mathematical equations were established by Daniel Bernoulli in the 18th
century. Bernoulli's theorem reveals the relationship between the velocity
of a media and the its exerted pressure.
The wing lifting mechanismus depends on the following variables:
- surface area , angle of attack, its speed and the density of the air.
Every variable setting from above requires different airfoil or wing shape
that is optimal.
This is the reason why airplanes nowadays are designed to be capable of
changing their wing shape. One who had flown can tell that the wings of the
plane visibly change their length and curvature at landing or take off.
And now here is one occasion when you want turbulance on the wing, at landing.
Besides the reversed thrust of the engines every flaps are activated on the
wing to increase drag, to stop the plane.
So the summary : we would like to have a nice laminar flow around the wing
during flight, with smooth, curved streamlines, with high proportion of lift
as compared to drag, that is with the possible least turbulency.
So this is the secret of flying that fascinated the mankind
for so long time.
Oh, it became quite long but I hope it will be entertaining for some degree.
Viktor
Ps.
I found a quite entertaining description of wings and aerodynamics in the
Encyclopedia Americana for you who interested in details.

Zoli writes:
>> After the filling up of the [Slovak] reservoir, flow>> downstream [... o]n the Hungarian side [...] is rather dry>>One actual fact, at long last ;-<. -- Zoli
Zoli, your quotation isn't factual, it would appear to be out-of-context ;-<.
It was clear that the reference read "thereafter downstream to the Black Sea
is normal."
FYI, Frajkor wrote:
> That is correct. After the filling up of the reservoir, flow>downstream through the slovak side and thereafter downstream to the>Black Sea is normal. On the Hungarian side, it is rather dry and>would remain so until Dunakilti is operable and Nagymaros is built.
IMHO, the water has no option but to flow thru Hungary to the Black Sea,
the fact that it's been quite a dry year in terms of rainfall, with
record highs in the summer ought not be overlooked either.
Tony

Imi Bokor writes:
> >Hungary> >> >Terrain: mostly flat to rolling plains> protected by carpathian alps and their foothills to the north and east,> by the yugoslav and austrian alps and their foothills in the west and> south.
Imi, it is time to look at a geography book that is post 1920. You just
stated, that Hungary's neutrality depends on her geographical defenses that
are currently in the Ukraine, Romania and Slovakia. On second thought, you
might be correct.:-)
Regards,Jeliko
PS BTW, the example country you were referring to in Eastern Europe,i.e.
Roumania, just signed the NATO affiliate partnership treaty.

The Sage of a Southern Hill writes:
> "Ralph just had a terrible accident. His car is a total loss and he> will be in hospital for six weeks."> "Well, that's the way the cookie crumbles."> I shouldn't send this, but it's early in the morning, and I'm awake!
But didn't Ralph call his car Cookie?
Regards,Jeliko.
I shouldn't send this but it is monday, my favorit day, cause it is
furthest away from next monday.

Imi Bokor writes:
> switzerland's neutrality predates its economic strangth by over a
century.
> during the last century and earlier parts of this century, the swiss were> the guest workers of many countries in europe, and many emigrated to the> usa, canada, south america to support families at home.
So Hungary was also neutral at the turn of the century and it had a lot of
economic emigrees, maybe than neutrality is not such a good thing?
More seriously, you cant mix time periods when discussing the issue. If you
are expecting Hungary to follow an example now, you have to use examples
of today. Neutrality meant something different a hundred years ago than
what it means today. (Not that neutrality is a well defined thing anyway)
> > Austria, not neccesarily through solely its own actions, ended up> >"neutralized" due to major powers negotiations, by being a borderland> >between the two major camps of the time.> that is also how switzerland became a neutral country over one hundred> years earlier.> >(IMHO, The Hungarians would have> >been very happy to be "neutralized" at the same time Austria was.)> Partly> >due to its (not self-selected) status, Austria also became much stronger> >economically than would have occured otherwise.> >Both countries were more developed on a comparative basis, than Hungary> >when they became "neutral" (even though to a different degree) and were> >less in need of foreign assistance.> quite the contrary. even today switzerland could not sustain itself> easily with food and energy even for a short while. hungary could ---> it has enough coal and enough timber to potentially supply energy demands> albeit at lower than current levels.
I was not talking about foreign trade dependency, but political.
> >> >Can Hungary achieve or should it achieve similar status is really a> >question of its population's wishes, but IMHO, even then it will need a> >favorable geopolitiocal situation.> hungary is fortunate in that its geopolitical location is favourable to> neutrality.
If the favored geopolitical location is the middle of the road in pretty
heavy traffic, than you may be right.
> austria did not need the co-operation of the swiss for its neutrality. in> fact there is some dubstantial distance between the two countries, with> spying affairs in volved, cf brigadier jean-marie(?) of the swiss army
Interesting example then for neutrality.
If there is no strength to be gained by being joined by supporting
neutrals, even if it is moral support.
Imi, in these affairs it is not the people who are behind you that count,
but those who are beside you in a conflict. The whole world was behind the
Hungarian revolution of 1956, a lot of good it did. Now if a few were
beside it, the story may have had a slightly different outcome.
Regards,Jeliko.

On Mon, 19 Sep 1994 14:24:16 GMT JELIKO said:
>The Sage of a Southern Hill writes:>
--That's kinder than der Dreckfink!
>But didn't Ralph call his car Cookie?>
--Don't start with the cookie jokes!
>I shouldn't send this but it is monday, my favorit day, cause it is>furthest away from next monday.
--As someone once said on this list, Jeliko, ask the nurse to change
your medicine. What you are on isn't working (Joke) (I refuse to
use those damn smileys).

My dear virtual friend Tony,
my quote was not out of context, but taking the relevant one leaving out
the misleading reference to dammings at Dunakiliti and Nagymaros -
envisioned by GF et.al. but rejected by the Hungarians and thus
not going to be built. I am glad to hear that there are no major damages
done to the water system all the way to the Black Sea dowstream the region
disturbed by Gabcikovo, but it seems totally irrelevant to the discussion
on what's happening to the section robbed of water.
-- Zoli

My virtual friend Zoli writes:
>envisioned by GF et.al. but rejected by the Hungarians and thus>not going to be built. I am glad to hear that there are no major damages>done to the water system all the way to the Black Sea dowstream the region>disturbed by Gabcikovo, but it seems totally irrelevant to the discussion>on what's happening to the section robbed of water.
Seems that the relevant aspect to the discussion is the unilateral breach
of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros compact ( on the part of Hungary ) which led to
what's happening to the section 'robbed' of water. Zoli, would you perchance
be able to introduce the Magyar Hirlap article in its entirety, and perhaps
comment on the policy of the present Hungarian administration, which after
all seems to be much the same as the one which had entered into the compact
in the first place.
Tony

On Sep 19, 6:22am, wrote:
(stuff deleted)
> I am affraid the "neutral corridor" does not exist anymore, Austria> will become a member of the European Union and cannot avoid to be> integrated, in my opinion, to some defense structure.>
I just heard on the radio last night that the Austrian People's Party has
come out in favor of abandoning neutrality and joining the WEU and possibly
NATO. The Social Democrats continue to support neutrality, and it is likely
to be an issue in the upcoming election campaign.
Heather Olsen

Re Ethnic Cleansing in Czechoslovakia and
on the Hungarian Count Esterhazy, the
only member of the Slovak Parliament in
WW II to vote against the sanctions against
the Jewish population
Jan George Frajkor writes:
> the story is not really quite complete. An investigation of the> Hungarian archives after the war showed that Esterhazy was a paid> agent of the Horthy government.
.........
If you are aware of any archival material to substantiate your point, as
you claim, you owe it to the readers of this Discussion Group to give
precise citations. Where are these documents? Who authored these documents?
Their catalog numbers? Are they publicly accessible? Also, who conducted
the investigation? On whose testimony was the charge made? How credible
is the source? What is the evidence? Why should it be believed?
The Communists were masters at fabricating "evidence". The show trials
of Czechoslovakia are prime examples. The cemeteries of Central Europe
bear mute witness to the atrocities committed based on such "evidence".
What you cite is anecdotal at best, or possibly leftover propaganda of
the defunct Communist regime. Until you furnish the corroborating
information and the veracity thereof can be established, you do not have
a case.
C.K. Zoltani
P.S. An excellent discussion of the retributive system of justice, aimed
at the Hungarian minority in post-World War II Czechoslovakia, can be
found in
Janics, K., A hontalasag evei. (With a forword by Illyes Gyula)
Europai Protestans Magyar Szabadegyetem, Bern, 1979, pp 279-302
It includes a short discussion of the trial in absentia of Esterhazy (he
was a deportee in a Russian labor camp at the time). Esterhazy was head
of the Hungarian Party of Slovakia and was in direct opposition to the
Slovak Nazi puppet leader Tiso and his policies. Even so, after the war
he was accused of being a fascist and "having contributed to the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia". It should be noted that according to the
Czechoslovak law of retribution (33/1945 SNR Sb) #2 gives a definition
of treason. In practice it meant that anybody, who in any capacity
worked for or was a part of the former government, could be defined as
such. Thus, for example, Esterhazy's speeches in the Parliament were
held against him. A court had the right, without presenting any proof,
to claim that an accused was the "enemy of the Czech and Slovak
Nations". Also, it should be kept in mind that the trials were held in
the shadow of several presidential decrees, such as 104/1945, 108/1945.
These, among other provisions, deprived Hungarians of all of their
property for the simple reason that they were Hungarians. These decrees
have never been withdrawn, they are on the books in 1994.
Thus, Esterhazy's crime was simply that he was Hungarian.

>I've already apologized twice for not knowing that Dreck was German.
Charles, be patient. It can take a few days or even weeks for everyone on the
list to read each article, and responses to more controvertial things are more
likely to be sent, even if the discussion on that topic has died.
>Can I go now?
Yes, Mr. Atherton, you may go now, but I would like to speak with your mommy.
All

From: LISO::VARGA "VIKTOR VARGA 8*346-2958 NELA PARK" 19-SEP-1994
08:33:51.35
To: thomas::""
CC: VARGA
Subj: FWD: Wings, How the birds and planes fly .......
For some reason my message did not appear on the hungary bulettin board so I
send here.....
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
First I thought I would not bother to adress a statement about the turbulent
airflow around wings that results the lift force...
I changed my mind and will comment, although I am not and 'aviation engineer'.
I used to be involved in model plane building and design and later I took some
courses on aerodynamics at my university as well.
So hear my tale:
On airplane wings one would like to avoid turbulence!!!:
The matter of fact is that turbulent flow would cause quite a trouble on the
wing as it would increase the so called drag force, i.e. the aerodynamic
resistance.
Thus, it would increase the necessary thrust to keep the plane
flying since a certain wing profile requires a certain velocity
to travel with in order to prevent from descending. The lift force of a wing
depends on the velocity it travels.
So the less the drag, or turbulency, the easier to make a plane fly!!!
How a wing works :
------------------
Airplanes use wings, which are surfaces that is designed to obtain maximum
aerodynamic lift (sometimes they are called airfoils). They provide
aerodynamic lift because of their curvature of thier surfaces. THe wing upper
surface is more cambered then the lower one so the air flowing over the top
of the wing is forced to move more quickly, it has to pass on a longer way.
THe velocity increase in the upper airflow causes decrease in pressure
relative to the lower one thus providing the lift force on the total area
of the wing(s).
The mathematical equations were established by Daniel Bernoulli in the 18th
century. Bernoulli's theorem reveals the relationship between the velocity
of a media and the its exerted pressure.
The wing lifting mechanismus depends on the following variables:
- surface area , angle of attack, its speed and the density of the air.
Every variable setting from above requires different airfoil or wing shape
that is optimal.
This is the reason why airplanes nowadays are designed to be capable of
changing their wing shape. One who had flown can tell that the wings of the
plane visibly change their length and curvature at landing or take off.
And now here is one occasion when you want turbulance on the wing, at landing.
Besides the reversed thrust of the engines every flaps are activated on the
wing to increase drag, to stop the plane.
So the summary : we would like to have a nice laminar flow around the wing
during flight, with smooth, curved streamlines, with high proportion of lift
as compared to drag, that is with the possible least turbulency.
So this is the secret of flying that fascinated the mankind
for so long time.
Oh, it became quite long but I hope it will be entertaining for some degree.
Viktor
Ps.
I found a quite entertaining description of wings and aerodynamics in the
Encyclopedia Americana for you who interested in details.

>> Where did you get the info for you disertation on the behavior>of the>>Slovak water?>> Paul Gelencser>does it matter? surely the arguments presented stand or fall on their own>merits and are independent of the person communicating them.>d.a.
Yes, but the reason for the question was out of curiosity of where you are
getting
your arguments from, given that you are not a scientist. As you have seen,
others
on the list with significant knowledge on the topic had views opposed to the
one you presented, as to the affect of the dam on the environment. (Not being a
n
expert in the field, I cannot give such an informed opinion, but as an engineer
with basic background in the field I am able to determine if an argument is
reasonable, or full of it, and your did seem reasonable).
Paul Gelencser

On Mon, 19 Sep 1994 17:27:20 EDT paul said:
>>Charles, be patient. It can take a few days or even weeks for everyone on the>list to read each article, and responses to more controvertial things are more>likely to be sent, even if the discussion on that topic has died.>
--I know. I was trying my best to be whimsical. It is hard.

Tony Pace wrote:
>FYI, Frajkor wrote:>> That is correct. After the filling up of the reservoir, flow>>downstream through the slovak side and thereafter downstream to the>>Black Sea is normal. On the Hungarian side, it is rather dry and>>would remain so until Dunakilti is operable and Nagymaros is built.>IMHO, the water has no option but to flow thru Hungary to the Black Sea,>the fact that it's been quite a dry year in terms of rainfall, with>record highs in the summer ought not be overlooked either.>Tony
One problem not addressed has been the level of flow at any given time.
The Slovaks can turn the spout on/off as their power needs dictate. If it is
a dry year, they could decide to stop the flow in order to have enough water
behind the dam in the case of a power shortage. Do they use it for drinking
also? If so, they could stop the flow to store drinking water.
Paul Gelencser

I normally agree with George Antony on almost all issues but obviously this
time we differ in our assessments of Hungary's attitude to NATO. Let me say
at the very beginning that I agree with him that NATO at the moment seems
like a paper tiger, mostly because of the Serb-Bosnian conflict. It is also
true that President Clinton's foreign policy leaves a lot to be desired.
(This was an understatement. I am very disappointment in American foreign
policy of late.) But that does not necessarily mean that NATO will remain a
paper tiger for ever or that President Clinton will be in power for ever. (As
things look at the moment, he might not even get another four years.)
George said,
>As long as there is an independent Ukraine,>Hungary is not threatened geopolitically, unlike Poland.
So far, so good, but the news coming out of the Ukraine is not very
encouraging. First, it is not at all sure whether the Ukraine will remain
independent for ever. Second, I know that today it is very difficult to
imagine a situation in which we will have a cold war-like situation again
between the West and Russia. But just because it is difficult to imagine it
today, it doesn't mean that it cannot come to pass.
George continues:
>Hungary has already been abandoned, more exactly>relegated to also-ran status proportional with her geopolitical importance.
and,
>Despite the bombast of the initial>period after the fall of the wall, little government-to-government help has>been>forthcoming (apart from the Germans): Western governments have proved>themselves totally unwilling to put their money where their mouth is.
Unfortunately, here I have to agree with George but not participating in the
very first joint exercise which includes the countries of the Partnership in
Peace ilk will not remedy that problem. The only thing the East European
countries can hope for is a lot of foreign investment. But Horn's talk about
"wealth tax" (vagyonado; not the same as property tax), for example, is not
conducive to foreign investment, even if nothing comes of it. And that on top
of Hungary's reluctance to join members of NATO in Poland.
The Socialists have a baggage in the eyes of the West: they are, after all,
the successors of the former Communist party. Does it make sense to talk
about Hungarian reluctance to join NATO (see Horn's utterances on the
subject) and not to send a few soldiers to the exercises? I don't think so.
As George pointed out correctly, only God knows whether Hungary will ever be
able to join NATO in the first place. We all agree that Partnership in Peace
is not much. But let's not talk about all this when it is not even necessary
to talk about it, and let's not be snutty and refuse to participate in an
international gathering of armies. All this is premature. Eva Balogh

>In article >, Doug Ramsey> writes:>> ****************************************************************>> ATTENTION INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS>> ****************************************************************>I would greatly like to know just what an international student is. One of>ancestry of more nations than one?>Actually, we all know that this is no more than a mealy-mouthed way of saying>"foreign student", from the mistaken notion that "foreign" is a pejorative wor
d
Hala'sz Sa'ndor,
Take a valium, man! The term "INTERNATIONAL STUDENT" is widely used at
universities, by universities, with non-pejorative intentions. Dido with
the term "foreign student". Any critisism of such folks is usually accompanied
by an explanation of the sentiment, at least as far as I have seen.
Paul Gelencser

Subject: Re: buckley's
From: Charles,
Date: 18 Sep 94 15:50:59 GMT
In article > Charles,
writes:
>On Sun, 18 Sep 1994 02:13:57 GMT > said:>>>>in the vernacular, "buckley's" or "buckley's chance" means "no chance'
or
>>"no hope", as in: "you've got three chances: yours, mine and buckley's".>>>--Must be 'Strine. I vaguely remember hearing the expression, but>it's not used here. We do have Hobson's choice, which is no choice at>all. And the late Dizzy Dean, the baseball pitcher (fast bowler, to>you) used to talk of two chances, slim and none, and slim just left>town. Or, originating in the American Southwest @1921 (according to>Rogers's *Dictionary of Cliches* we can be between a rock and a hard>place. Rogers doesn't mention Buckley's chance. Do you by any chance>know the etymology? I love cliches.>>Charles.
corssitsstrinemayt!
stone the flamin' crows, what lingo djareckon we use here?
as for its etymology, i do not know. it could actually come from the
british isles. i'll try to find out.
in the meantime, do you know why american beer is like making love in a
canoe?
d.a.

George Antony writes:
> you are still operating on the premise that> the superpower and several medium powers ARE ready to enter into a> security arrangement with Hungary.
Well, yes and no. I doubt Nato's leadership, as of today, would let
Hungary sign on the dotted line; but leadership as well as conditions are
liable to change, and long-term
security, IMHO, is worth pursuing even if takes a few years.
> So, far from being a skeptic, you are an incorrigible optimist.
I plead guilty.
> What I meant was that some people> expect NATO membership to fall from the sky and solve all of Hungary's> security problems and all the friction with the neighbours.
Well, there must be a few around who figure the work required for
membership would build character.
> The Russians think otherwise and made this very clear.
Up theirs then?
> They want to maintain> as much influence in the old empire as much as possible, and an extended NATO> would be an obstacle in that.
A definite selling point for Nato.
> The Germans call the shots in the EU these> days...
Another definite selling point for Nato. ;-)
But anyway, I think we understand each other's position. Speaking as an IO,
I suppose that in the best of worlds, Hungary would enjoy strong bilateral
and multilateral security relations, and as long as she is pursuing at least on
e
of these, things can't be two bad.
--Greg

Subject: Re: Freud snippets on religion
From: Charles,
Date: 18 Sep 94 14:50:49 GMT
In article > Charles,
writes:
>On Sun, 18 Sep 1994 02:43:31 GMT > said:>>>I told you what the basis for my criticism was.>>>>the only justification i have seen from you is that freud did not have a>>degree (or some other formal qulification) in theology. what other>>reasons do you have?>>>--Okay, you seem to discount any criticism based on specialized knowledge
i do not. it was you who discounted freud's comments on the basis of his
lack of formal qualifications in theology.
as i have explicitly stated in other postings in this group, any comment
or criticism should be judged on its own merits, independently of any
formal qualification(s) or affiliations of the person presenting it
>and therefore we are left to deal only with throwing proof texts back and>forth like a couple of fundamentalist Southern Baptists. It would take>many long postings to explain in detail and I conclude from your spirited>defense that you are a True Believer, so I don't have much hope for my>argument.
i do not konw what you mean by a "true beliver", especially not in the
context you have just used it.
> But let me try. In *Moses and Monotheism* Freud sees religion>as the search for the good father. This make sense from within the>belief system of psychoanalysis, but is hopelessly naive from a>theological viewpoint.
i recall from scripture classes that god is the father of mankind.
in all our religious instruction the analogy between a family in the
social
or biologoical sense was drawn with god and mankind, with god as "our
father, who art in heaven", the benvolent father.
perhaps the author(s) of the holy scriptures were hopeless theologians
too.
> The Old Testament describes a God who acts in>order to establish communication with his people. The OT does not>describe a people looking for a God.
in fact it does, if i recall correctly. but i do not recall the details.
i seem to recall tales of peoples comparing and chhosing different gods,
with, in at least one case, an acknowledgement of the god of the
israelites
as being the mightiest.
but my memory could be faulty. i have no qualifications in theology, so
one of the members of this group who is more familiar with the biblical
texts than i will surely clarify matters.
>In fact, God is rather an>inconvenience that Israel often tried to avoid, e.g., the allegory of>the golden calf. Most of the words of the major prophets deal with>an Israel that continually strayed from God, preferring to ignore>the relationship. In Jeremiah we read that God actually uses>Nebuchadnezzar as an instrument of correction. We also have the>allegory of the flood to indicate God's displeasure with his people>who have strayed. Read from a theological point of view, this does>not sound like a group of people looking for a loving father to make>up for the lacks of their earthly fathers.>>>freud had the psychiatric training that was customary at the time.>>>--Horsehockey!
i don't know about hockey. the only sport i have any training or
qualifications in is fencing.
He was trained as a neurologist.
that's right. he had no prospect of a stable career
in research since he would not have been granted a stable position at the
university in vienna, since he was jewish. that is why he practised
medicine.
> Formal training>in psychiatry was limited and unrecognizeable from what it is today.
of course -- all psychiatric training then was unrecognisable from what
it is today. he received the standard training of his day, and not the
training of some sixty years after his death. i am equally sure he did
not learn about the structure of dna either, or about aids.
>One of Freud's constant complaints was that the psychiatric establishment>had no time for him, and didn't accept his theories. It wasn't until>the Clark lectures in America that anybody in the psychiatric>establishment began to take him seriously. European psychiatry has>never been very Freudian--and Freud did not do the residence, such>as it was, even in his day except for his stint with Charcot with>whom he quarreled.
in fact he had established a school in vienna by then, if i recall
correctly. galileo was also not taken seriously by the established
scientists of his day. either was fourier. do i need to go on listing
examples of scientific breakthroughs which challenge the prevailing
paradigm and are therefore rejected by the established, acknowledged
experts? "heresy" is the usual charge in some form or other.
>>does this mean that freud *did* know something about theology after all?>>>--No. Being bar mitzvahed does not make one a theologian any more>than being confirmed in the Catholic Church makes one a Jesuit>philosopher. As I recall, Freud's father was a religious Jew,>and there were rabbis in the family. He could have learned about>the pilpul without being a theologian. I know several atheists>who know something about Christian traditions, but that doesn't>make them theologians.
are you saying, after all, that since freud had not theological training,
he did not know about theology?
>>>my recollection is that his overall project was the understanding of>>mental illness, in particular hysteria and other forms of what we call>>"neurosis", and this on a neurophysiological basis.>>--But there is nothing neurophysiological in psychoanalysis.
there is also very little newtownian in the theory of general relativity,
although that is where it started!
freud saw psychoanalysis as a means to understanding neurotic behaviour
at the macroscopic level, at the phenomenological level, and as offering
the means to treat some forms of neurosis. he maintained that when
science would be advanced enough, then the microscopic mechanism, i.e.
the
neurophysiological, biochemical, etc. processes involved, would be
clarified.
by the way, there is a close analogy here with thermodynamics and
molecular dynamics. the global behaviour of gases has prima facie little
to do with the behaviour of individual molecules. knowing the behaviour
of each molecule would, at least in theory, lead to complete knowledge of
the behaviour of gases. of course that path to understanding and dealing
with gases, such as in the case of meteorology or aerodynamics, is barred
to us at the moment. we deal with these matters at the macroscopic level.
in fact the situation in physics is much worse, for there is no known way
of treating microscopic and macroscopic phenomena simultaneously. quantum
mechanics and general relativity don't seem to fit together too well.
> Non->medically trained practitioners can practice it.>Erik Erikson, one>of the most prominent neo-Fredians was a lay analyst, and the>Institute for Psychoanalysis in Chicago did not--and if it is still>in business--still does not require a medical degree to be accepted.
many people can also practice other forms of psychological treatment
without being medically trained. the same is true of "health workers"
not all are trained in schools of medicine.
>Now, if neurology is so important, why not? In *Psychopathology of>Everyday Life*, Freud tells of treating a young woman's abdominal>pains as a neurosis until it became obvious that she had stomach>cancer. He blamed himself for not even giving her a routine medical>examination.
sure. but a mistaken diagnosis is not the same as a false theory.
i am sure that freud's mistaken diagnosis, for which, as you yourself
pointed out, he blamed himself, is not unique in the annals of medicine
or psychology, or psychiatry.
>> he was the first to admit that they>>are not the last word. he even said at one stage that his approach is
for
>>dealing with neuroses and of limited value with psychoses.>>>--I believe that he did say that the method was limited as you say.>On the other hand, his constant wrangling with his associates suggests>that he was not very good at handling criticism and that he, despite>the disclaimer, believed that his view was essentially correct
that is a human sin i can easily forgive freud. he became more and more
authortarian in his later years, and developed theories which, to me at
least, were retrograde steps, such as his theory of thanatos. but such
jealous guarding of one's own work can be seen in other scientists as
well.
einstein was dismissive of quantum mechanics.
>and that>his opponents were dead wrong when they suggested alternative>interpretations. Seems to me a case of "Now I could be wrong, but...>I'm not!"
this is a human foible which he should have chosen to avoid. but surely
it is the way most of us argue. surely most of us, when we are serious,
argue from and with conviction, even if we admit the possibility that we
are wrong. i would suggest that nost of us would continue to argue, at
least until our arguments were defeated by more convincing ones. of
course some of us would extract themselves from and intellectual debate
as soon as the danger of losing it rears its ugly(?) head....
>--They don't know about them, imi, since I've only mentioned them in>private postings--unless I pressed the wrong key. Are you saying that>education in a specialty is useless and that anyone can know anything>without study?
no. i am not saying that at all. what i am saying is that it is quite
possible to have studied a problem or thought about it without having
formal qualifications and that history is replete with examples of the
received wisdom being --- and correct me if i am misusing the term ---
horsehockey: "the earth is flat," "flogiston," "aether," "leaching,"
need i continue?
i am assering that an argument or comment or criticism should stand or
fall on its own merits, independently of whether it is consistent with
"received views" and that no formal training is required to think.
i also assert that it is easier to convince most people of "received
wisdom" than of something which challenges it.
>I agree that academic ideas should be challenged, and>that anyone has the political right to do that. But when I have a>toothache, I will continue to consult a duly licensed dental surgeon,>rather than trust the best-informed layman as your argument suggests that>you are willing to do.
i have been to a dentist exactly once in the past twenty-five years. i
intend to go again soon.
>>>> 1. The world exists>>> 2. We can only know the world through sense experience (Sense>>> experience implies the ability to measure in some concrete>>> way).>>> 3. If one cannot measure a phenomenon, it doesn't exist.>>>>these canons exclude modern physics from being a science. i can live>>with that, but i suggest to you that most speakers of the english>>language would consider any notion of "science" which excludes physics>>to be a rather idiosyncratic. most people would, i maintain, view
physics
>>as the paradigm science.>>--I'll be damned if I understand your reasoning.
my reasoning is very simple --- as you should expect from someone as
simnple-minded as i consider myself to be. there is almost nothing you
can measure in physics without presupposing theory. for example, there is
no way of measuring time directly.
about the only "measurement" that is possible is the relative position of
two adjacent objects --- and even there we assume that we are not
experiencing an optical illusion.
as a challenge, tell me how you culd measure, say, a weight *without*
making theoretical assumptions.
>The last time I talked>to anybody in physics, they were keen on measurement and very lukewarm>toward metaphysics. Do they operate on the Platonic belief that this>world does not really exist, but is only a reflection of reality? Do>they not measure? Do they believe that things that can't be measured>have empirical existence? This is all very new to me, and I await>enlightenment on that point. You do a lot of argument by assertion,>don't you?
my assertions are surely provocative, since they undermine the prevailing
myths about science. rest assured that they are the result of giving the
matter thought. rest assured that i do not think that because i have
thought about the matter i am a priori right. but you will need to provide
sound arguments to comvince me.
d.a.

> [Freud] had no prospect of a stable career> in research since he would not have been granted a stable position at the> university in vienna, since he was jewish.
Freud wanted to do research on stable horses? Amazing what one
learns...
> there is almost nothing you> can measure in physics without presupposing theory.
Please provide us examples of the few things in physics one *can* measure
without presupposing theory.
> but you will need to provide> sound arguments to comvince me.
Funny how that works both ways.
--Greg

On Mon, 19 Sep 1994 23:04:41 GMT > said:
>>corssitsstrinemayt!>stone the flamin' crows, what lingo djareckon we use here?>
--Ah! That's more like it, Imi!
>in the meantime, do you know why american beer is like making love in a>canoe?>
--I know that one! Because it's effing close to water. We had an
English friend from Newcastle here last week. We went out to lunch, and
he wanted some beer. We weren't in a good place for that, but he ordered
it anyway. It was Michelob Light. He took one swallow and said to the
waitress, "What is this stuff? I ordered beer!" We got very poor service
after that, but he was right. American beer isn't fit to use to clean
dirty auto parts. You won't make me angry complaining about our beer.
There's a beer out of Boston called Samuel Adams that is drinkable in
an emergency, but that's it. We do, however, get Newky Broon here and
most good places have Foster's which is drinkable, although not great.
By the way, Imi, we had some Seppelt Cabernet Sauvignon tonight, and it
was very good. I think that you guys are doing something right down
there.
Charles
der Dreckfink